Posted 4 years ago on March 6, 2013, 2:34 p.m. EST by Kavatz
(464)
from Edmonton, AB
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Often people criticize the 99% Conglomerate for rejecting the idea of forcing Subsidiaries to pay all employees equal wages.

It simply can't happen in Phase 1, but during Phase 1 we draft the "P2 Constitution of the Conglomerate". During Phase 2 we draft the P3 Constitution. In Phase 3 we draft the Constitution for post-Phase 3.

The members of the Conglomerate will indeed be considering how workers should be paid, with different rules for P1, P2 and P3 type Subsidiaries. If you're involved, your influence level will be equal to everyone else, so the Constitutions will be drafted most democratically.

Before I knew about Mondragon (before much development on the Conglomerate idea) I was thinking top should be no more than 30% more than the bottom wage, but I've come to the conclusion that 500% (5 times) more is actually quite fair and workable for a competitive business.

I also want to remind that 400% more is not the same as 400 times more, as some people tend to think. 400% of a wage = the wage x 4. No offense, it's a common mistake.

Oh sure, we just have to get there. It's this notion that we can just vote it in or convince government to let us flip a switch... we can't just ram it home, we have to ease it in like a gentleman. hehe (I love Jim Carrey)

analystwanabe99 linked us here to the Venus Project. Have you checked that out?

Anyway, one day we'll be able to democratically decide our destiny. That's when the Conglomerate (the 99% fighting fire with fire, beating them at their own game) is more powerful than today's elite.

I'm not going to pretend I have the best vision of what it looks like beyond the money-based system, but I know it will be a place where no one person has greater freedom or property than anyone else.

I'd love to share Departmental Governance as a way to govern a nation/world. It's not an economic system, just a structural and political alternative no one else has considered as far as I know. Pretty sure all the bases are covered and always searching for potential weaknesses. I believe it to be far superior to anything that's been tried or widely discussed. Just let me know...

Yes it's a challenge for sure. Neither of us have an easy path to our desired future. Just a note though, equality will never happen in a money system. We should use the current system against our oppressors, make the best of the situation, and strive to evolve past money ASAP.

All we both really want is equality. It's this system that's keeping us apart.

PS: "It has become a natural response on here to become defensive and attack ." [sic]

Then the twin party and government propagandists have done their job successfully (unfortunately). This is why I post under my name. TPTB surveillance of this site means that "they" already know who we are, thus a screen name merely hides my identity from the people with whom I want to converse. How does this engender trust? By allowing me to create "sock puppets" and "twinkle teams"? To make outrageous and slanderous statements about other posters anonymously? Aye, there's the rub...

I'm just tired of the lack of trust, being paranoid and worrying about my reputation if someone I know finds out what I'm doing. I'm most tired of our inability to unite as a people and being indefensible as a people.

I don't think I could gain more trust here using my real name, though I totally understand where you're coming from.

If I stop posting on this site, it will be because I "committed suicide" (as the papers will read), because I don't plan to die or give up any time soon.

BTW, It's most certain TPTB are controlling our behavior in ways we can't realize. When we become defensive and attack, it's brainwashing that causes us to do this. It's part of our training as TPTB's livestock. Reminds me of The Matrix, we just live as a source of energy for the powers we don't even know exist.

I have a friend that prosecutes qui tam defense contractor fraud cases (not so much these days) -- whistleblowers, the whole nine yards. Believe me, it's not paranoia if they're really out to get you...

What you write is why I advocate voting No Consent rather than candidates in elections. The lesser of two evils is still evil, is it not? You either withdraw your consent or you condone evil. Withdrawing your consent under our social contract, our Constitution, by voting, is the only officially moral act you can commit outside of the jury box.

The 1% is not invited. Others will be encouraged and pressured to join, but they will have to adhere to the current Constitution. If they don't join, they risk losing their profits to Subsidiaries who have the purchasing power of the 99% supporting them.

Gar Alperovitz: "But I think it is just possible, maybe, if we are serious, and actually want to talk about systemic change, in real terms rather than rhetoric, and actually draw on the traditions of this country and our own imaginations, just possibly we can establish the foundations of the next system, that takes us beyond traditional corporate capitalism, traditional state socialism, and that builds a new vision that ain't like any of the other ones but is really a democratic society..."

Just sayin . . . don't reinvent the wheel. This guy has been working on this stuff since 1974 and before. If you and all here are serious jump on his bandwagon and take that ride. He is 40 years ahead of you.

Oh I know, he's great. But what everyone seems to be missing is the way to get there. The Conglomerate is the way. If you support the Venus Project, join the Conglomerate. It's incredibly easy, I can help you.

It's useful for conversation and conveying the idea. I believe the Subsidiaries will eventually change the name, I don't care if they do because I'm not attached to names.

We are stuck in this system of corporate capitalism. Really stuck, because it's really the corporations running the show with all of government in their pockets. Electing a different party to fix this is not an option. You can't convince them of anything because their minds are made up, and they have big plans.

So our only option is to make the best of the situation with what we have. What do we have? The freedom to create a corporation with the potential to exceed them in global power and influence.

We have to fight fire with fire and beat them at their own game. Does this make sense?

You want to become them??? I would rather take their money away by reducing my consumption and fulfilling my needs at garage sales and estate sales, buying from farmers markets and coops here in the community. Buy only American made stuff. I'm always looking for new ways to reduce my heat and air costs and electricity use overall. Its not the American way but if everyone did it the big boys would be hurting for certain. I'm all for a movement by the poor, unemployed masses that we can start NOW! then work on the bigger plan. Jus sayin . . .
Im going to look at your site and see what your doin. . .

Right, if the 99% start getting on the Directory of Subsidiaries, then all supporters of the movement will be able to look there for local 99% goods/services. It's a smart way to boycott the 1%.

As the Phases progress, 99% Conglomerate advertizing will be more and more aggressive. People will eventually be scanning business logos for the 99% symbol in order to make purchasing decisions.

Thanks for looking at the site, but remember this isn't the official site, just a Phase 1 project task: Creating a list of Subsidiaries for distribution of the Subsidiary Directory. It's experimental but I like it so far... very effective, free and easy.

OK Mr Conglomerate . . .I got a subsidy for the 99%ers. Fresh salsa. How do I sell it? How do I get other 99%ers to know about it? Here is your chance. Flesh out your plan. I didn't see much on your site about this or for that matter much of anything. I did follow your latest posting to someone else here. Who's minding the site? Are you spending all your time trying to convince 1 person at a time and no time updating your plan?

In many instances the worker works much harder than the manager (physically)

Would it not be more appropriate if all the profits were divided equally.. amongst manager and worker. Should this not increase work morality.. Equality amongst all people.. with an incentive to be most productive ensures the best working environment.

Paying people different amounts at different levels in the organization isn't a form of discrimination.

Wages are different because of different skill sets, knowledge and abilities.

People go to school for 10 years, for example, should be paid more than someone hired off the street who's never done more in there life besides push a broom and are unable to multiply 3x3 let alone find the square root of nine.

CEO's making 400 times current average salaries, have proved without any doubt, they are not fair and reasonable. Therefore why should I listen to their cries for fairness when I pay them Equal-pay to that of every other employee. If I were to pay them less than equal-pay.. than that would be unfair. which is really more than they deserve after what they have done.

How do you respond to his question about people who require years of education to do a certain job. Why would anyone invest that kind of time and money without a bigger reward? Why not just take the easier route if you are just going to be paid the same?

Or what about completely undesirable jobs like pumping shit out of portable toilets? Those guys make 6 figures sometimes and I doubt they would do it for much less.

Talk about discrimination! A few CEOs get greedy so you put them all in the same box? What do you think about Mondragon with the top only getting up to 6.5 (not 400) times more than the lowest wage? Is that so horrible?

Well that depends on the company of course. There is no way you or I could do what the CEO of my company can. I bet she can accomplish more in a day, EVERY day, than the two of us combined. And she would make fewer mistakes. And no one else can do her job but she can do all of ours. There's one example. Now if you think someone who can't tie their own shoes deserves as much money as she does...

I disagree. She's more organized, focused, talented and capable than an army of workers. Finding, training and retaining a hundred individuals to do that job is not close to feasible.

Plus she's not the character you discriminantly categorize her as. She doesn't make nearly enough money to pay for 100 employees and shes not greedy or evil. You're unfortunately blinded by hate and stuck in a fantasy world.

She is not the 1%. She is not your enemy. You have as much right and reason to hate her as the American History X guy has to hate all immigrants after one killed his dad.

I agree. Considering there are people with such a rare and desirable skillset, so how would government decide which organization they should work for, and would those people even want to work in such a system?